|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 18, 2008 2:02:33 GMT -5
As for the Palin, she broke ethics laws period. She could have stopped this, but let a personal agenda get in the way of performing her job per her position. Mmmmmmmm no, you once again are skating on thin legal ice. Governor Palin has not been found guilty by a competent court with authority of violation of ethics, nor has she been impeached and convicted by the legislature of her state. She merely has been accused in a non-binding "finding" by an investigation that has been directed by her political opponents. In so far as her performing her job, Alaskans seem to think she's been doing just fine and she is still very popular at home. They are looking at the totality of her record (which I would guess you wouldn't grasp the concept of because of the severe lack of record on the part of your presidential candidate) and what she has been doing as a whole. Let's put it this way... regardless of whether this jackass trooper was her ex-brother in law or not, his ass should have been fired right after the personnel investigation issued a finding sustaining the allegations against him. ...............etc....And that brings us to this point. Very well, Palin is found to have broken ethics policy by a bipartisan investigation, mostly her own part, not opponents as you are suggesting. I never said she was or will be impeached. As for job performance by Alaskans, that is questionable. I haven't seen proof that she is well loved, other than the one-time giveaway or approving aerial shooting of wolves. There is also stories of questions of building a hockey stadium with a parking lot bigger than the city in which it was built, and later proved unprofittable. The bridge to nowhere was a flop as well. The loss of jobs to locals didn't prove lovable and selling natural gas to other countries doesn't serve the country either when we are hurting for energy. I have to agree, the brother-in-law should have been fired at the time of his crimes, stripped of his badge and duty and even sent to jail. Why didn't it happen? I don't condone his actions and they should have been dealt with in court, not brought into a professional, political office afterwards. This was her mistake. As for Monegan, per the report, it was within her powers to act, but she should expect to be hearing from the courts again since it appears he will sue to save his name. Palin should have waited to run just to clear these matters because it sure doesn't help her or the party at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 18, 2008 10:36:33 GMT -5
How can you not understand where bloverk is going with this, yet explain the court system? Palin was dealing with the inferior court system and I'm still not sure the correlation with Hillary. How quaint.... I agree with you and then you crap on me for it. It's two seperate questions / points at issue within the post. Get it? |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 18, 2008 11:07:00 GMT -5
Very well, Palin is found to have broken ethics policy by a bipartisan investigation, mostly her own part, not opponents as you are suggesting. I never said she was or will be impeached.You asserted on an earlier page of this thread that she was going to be recalled back to Alaska, and the thinly veiled meaning I took from that post as a whole was that impeachment or legal action was imminent. On page one of this thread your fellow traveller Saunterelle proclaimed "the verdict which found her guilty of abuse of power". I called shenanigans on you both and let the backpedalling and equivocation begin. As was pointed out by me, repeatedly, the report is a finding of an investigation. It is a statement of opinion by the investigators. The left, in it's zeal to smear, keeps glossing that over and proclaiming guilt. Please pay close attention... her firing of Monegan was found within her power and authority, and while the report does include an opinion that she violated an ethics law that forbids using the office for personal gain, it recommends no sanctions, criminal or otherwise. Can you, or anyone show me exactly what she gained personally? If you can't, then you have no argument and tyhe report is logically laid bare for the political hatchet job that it is. Do you read Alaska newspapers? I'd suspect the answer is no, hence you logically would have no basis to understand the level of her popularity, nor the public perception of her job performance. Let me help you out.... From May of 2007.To now...Granted that the Anchorage Daily News is not exactly her friend, spins the latter article to note a "huge drop", she still runs 68% approval. In case you care that is way over triple what our Governor polls here in California. Ooooooooh, there are "stories". Well, unless you have something concrete they aren't squat. And the bridge to nowhere canard? You're really reaching. What's next, a ressurection of the Bristol birthed the Down's baby story? So the$40B natural gas pipeline deal she negotiated, which will bring thousands of new jobs to Alaska for generations to come, and energy to us down her in the lower 48, is chopped liver? Your talking points are weak, dear lady, and are becoming easier to hit, often for extra bases. I'd suggest getting some new ones. Well yes and no. Not firing the jackass was Walt Monegan's mistake. An act of cowardice, in my opinion, for which I would have fired Monegan were I the governor. That he only added fuel to the fire under his own butt by, allegedly, being openly insubordinate merely makes the case to fire him outright even stronger. Her mistake was, if there really was one (remember the findings of the investigation noted above), was to simply not fire Monegan out of hand at the first instance of him not controlling his department. Sue for what? He has no standing to do so as a public official whose appointment is at the pleasure of the governor. Besides, lawsuits work both ways in the real world, in case you weren't aware. If he wants to sue to get his "good name" back (and I personally think he didn't have one anyway considering his behavior and how he ran his department), his entire record opens to discovery. All his skeletons come rattling out for all the world to see. Think he wants that? Every memo, every e-mail. Anything with his name or signature attached to it falls open, as do memos and e-mails about him, conversations, water cooler chat. You name it. If you think his good name is destroyed now, what do you think happens when his entire career is examined under a litigator's microscope? At the time all this was going on she was not the Vice Presidential nominee. She was the governor of a state, elected to do a job the best way she could. Her exercise of authority in doing that job is what is being questioned, and no one can govern wondering how it might look if they someday are fortunate enough to be nominated to run for higher office. Unless you are somehow thinking that woman's intuition should have told her to steer clear. Stick to the verifiable facts and stay away from leaps of logic. They get you into rhetorical trouble each and every time. |
|
|
|
Post by heckheckle on Oct 18, 2008 15:54:30 GMT -5
BD.
Maybe Hilary could be Secretary of State. Whoee!! She could join Connie in
"What the hell" kind of politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 18, 2008 16:18:39 GMT -5
Heckheckle , glad to have you back with us!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 18, 2008 16:21:20 GMT -5
How can you not understand where bloverk is going with this, yet explain the court system? Palin was dealing with the inferior court system and I'm still not sure the correlation with Hillary. How quaint.... I agree with you and then you crap on me for it. It's two seperate questions / points at issue within the post. Get it? I just couldn't (and still don't see the correlation). What does Palin have to do with Hillary, but what the heck. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 18, 2008 19:55:18 GMT -5
Yes, I read that she would be recalled, but I didn't say what for. It had something to do with the case, like more questioning I presumed.
What you keep forgetting here is the bipartisan committee who investigated was a preponderence of Republicans. Look, she set herself up for this so-called smear you insist is happening, by accepting the VP position. I don't care who it is that runs, with this garbage, anyone is game. Do you really think this is over with? I thought I heard correctly that Monegan would sue, however after researching, it appears that he wants an investigation into his firing. This isn't over yet.....
Your leaps of logic are off again. You know the internet is a wonderful thing. Whatever you find to support your POV, I would find the same to support mine.
Regardless of whether we agree or not, Alaska law says the Wooten case was closed. With that, it was Palin's mistake to let a personal agenda affect her governorship, which is why she broke Alaska's ethics law.
I believe JMO addressed women's intuition awhile back and yes, it should have told her to wait. Now, as it is, she may have jeopardized 2012. It seems your leaps of logic hasn't brought you any clear answers here either, which is why denial can be a beautiful thing to some.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 19, 2008 14:45:10 GMT -5
Denial?
The only denial around here is you refusing to accept fact, make up sh!t out of thin air and continue to spin someone else's talking points. I present legitimate research and you dismiss it with "the internet is a wonderful thing".
What should follow next is a string of profanity, however you are not worth it. You are vblinded by hatred of Bush, no matter how many times you deny it, and you cling to association with a socialist agenda which you are too blinded to see will hurt this country in ways you can not imagine.
Enjoy the next four years. You are now back on my ignore list as you are not worth the time or the effort to have a reasoned argument of the facts with. You are a stooge of the propagandists, and I wish you well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 19, 2008 15:38:09 GMT -5
Yes, denial. The politics of the last 8 years has blinded you to justify every wrong committed. So Palin, who follows that wrong, is acceptable regardless of any wrong doing. If any democrat were to be in the same predicament, you'd be screaming bloody murder. There are many Republicans who cannot support her for other reasons, such as when she opens her mouth. It's what comes out that is evident she is not qualified to be VP and now with this issue in Alaska, I'm sure they are wondering if she is capable there as well. She has shown a light on Alaska that the country will realize this remote state has been left alone too long.
Fine, ignore me if that's what you need to do. I'm not loosing any sleep over it and I will enjoy the next 4 years and hopefully 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 20, 2008 10:52:22 GMT -5
Oh yeah, a reprimand for Child Abuse. That was a legitimate punishment. Abuse of power and child abuse deserve far greater consequences then a slap on the wrist. Walt Monegan found that out the hard way. He should have done his job then he would still have one. Stop making excuses for an obvious scumbag who tasered his step-son. Don't get me wrong here, I don't condone child abuse. Per the Alaska system, it claims this case was handled. Go figure! As for the Palin, she broke ethics laws period. She could have stopped this, but let a personal agenda get in the way of performing her job per her position. Man, your opinion of "this case was handled" is far different from mine. What I see is, trooper gets a walk and Palin gets subjected to a biased media and investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 20, 2008 10:53:22 GMT -5
BD. Maybe Hilary could be Secretary of State. Whoee!! She could join Connie in "What the hell" kind of politics. I thought you left in a huff, never to return? |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 20, 2008 11:01:33 GMT -5
He came back to rub people's noses in political poo in his own special way.
|
|
